People become leaders by creating and commanding change that positively affects the company. Land a major deal or create a new product line that doubles revenue? You're getting to the top.
Working harder than the others is part of this process, and sometimes that means you come in at 5am, but it's not a requirement nor is it something that anyone in that position actually focuses on as more than just a means to an end.
From my experience this does not happen at all. Not to underclass developers at least.
Part of it is making sure contributions are measured and noticed. People can't act on what they don't know.
It's most likely that you were severely underpaid in the first place, the raises have just slowly brought you up to industry standard, just spread over 3 years.
Your title increase is also great, but keep in mind, having you feel like you are a leader is also a great retention tool for you to keep working for them, producing good work.
I recommend looking in the marketplace for a new job to really see where you can be in your 4+ years. Don't feel like they have been so good to you that you couldn't increase your salary again by 30% by switching employers.
True, but if we're going with anecdata I'd point out that it's also common to see devs (and managers) who are taller get higher titles and progress faster too. My own experience is that the correlation is at least as strong as that with getting stuff done.
Sure, in theory it might be possible to progress as a developer but in practice the roi of putting in enormous effort is simply laughable compared to the alternatives. A few percent raise realistically. Getting to the top? Not a chance.
There are a rare few who are extremely talented and productive individual contributors but most are not, so try to maximize output by working with others. Even small teams have managed to make big impacts in massive companies so I reject the notion that you can't do anything.
But regardless, many people have gotten very high up in many organizations through persistence and patience. It's not easy, and each level will get harder because you have more intense competition for fewer slots, but saying "not a chance" goes directly against the fact that many have done just that.
Unfortunately those who are the first in their family to go to uni and go into a professional job don't always get the support and informal knowledge passed to them.
One example would be read a proper newspaper - I can recall when being asked which newspaper you read was a common interview Q in the UK
But if you’re claiming that individual contributor devs never get promoted for good work, that’s just clearly and utterly wrong.
Also claim quality engineering is only loosely correlated with advancement, it is one of the less efficient ways to secure a promotion/raise. In fact, managers often have no idea who is doing a good job.
Some people don't want that change and are happy where they're at. Others cant make that change. But that's what it takes. You can definitely climb the levels by excelling at what you at that particular level. If you still disagree then I would point to the generations of millions of immigrant families that arrived with nothing and earned their way to the top primarily through raw technical merit.
And yes, as stated, impact needs to be measured to be judged. If you do something that nobody knows about, then there's not much you can say.
If you want to make the weaker statement that growing from engineer to CTO almost never happens, you’re going to need statistics.
Realistically, humans are mortal and C suite types are made, not born. While not every engineer will become a CXO just due to disparity in job openings, someone needs to be promoted to take the CXO jobs once the previous crop has aged out of the work force. Some of them will be advanced because they’re good workers, others because they’re good at politics. You’ll need some statistics to back up any claim about what percentage are good workers and what percentage are politicians in business clothing.
My boss was delighted to take credit for it while also ensuring I stayed on message that it wasn't actually a result of him screwing up and being generally incompetent. I eventually figured I had nothing to lose and talked to his boss (politely of course) just saying how successful that had been and that I had plenty of other ideas for improvement. It was not well received.
But I hear my old boss is doing quite well these days.
Had a similar experience once. A small change generated $2m/year extra revenue. That amount just about covered the bonuses of two execs while I got the standard 3% raise. Not the only reason, but I left shortly afterwards.
I put it together with the one I had from my prior project and brought a rio diamond mp3 player.
Being accurate and quantifiable without becoming confrontational is an art though, but ultimately necessary. Going over people can often lead to worse results. Eventually the truth does come out but whether it's worth the time and effort is up to you.
Why does the truth eventually come out? Or is this an assumption?
If you don't manage to build a decent career/salary/position by your mid-thirties in tech you're quite likely screwed (though before I'm too depressing, I understand there are counterexamples here on HN). Waiting a year or two for recognition is career suicide.
I'd argue that 1 year is way too short. The lack of patience causes far more problems today than building up the relationships and gaining the network and momentum to get into higher positions. Most people I know who stuck to a clear goal within a organization that has openings have done better than those who kept jumping around looking for the quick rise.
Communication is important - very important - but it's also often what people focus on when the reality is just a bigger pain in the ass ("so and so is a selfish twit who takes credit for others' work" is much harder to say than "we need to address communication issues between departments")
For example, did you have to take credit for that particular situation? What was the true downside of your boss taking credit? Why not cover for him and gain the ally? Build the relationship and you'll often find that it pays back in multiples.
Business is 99% about relationships. The only way you can get what you want is by helping others get what they want.
Why not work with them, teach them, and make them better. Instead of being upset, be on their side. Almost always, they'll help you in return. Being confrontational and going around them though, will only guarantee more negative outcomes. Remember that your boss's boss and other colleagues probably don't want to deal with someone who is seemingly more interested in getting credit rather than getting things done.
These days I'd just quietly polish the CV and move along. But I have a much better job now.
I had a colleague who once told me "the trick to making good ideas happen is to make your boss think it was their idea". And they were completely right! It didn't stop them from quitting in frustration years later having never been promoted.
You can credit him and his cohorts for having the foresight to work on products/services that turned out to be winners, especially given that he's followed that success with other potentially successful ventures. But I don't buy that work alone got Musk where he is.
Waking up at 5am because other people are doing it won't get magically get you anywhere. However when you focus on achieving similar goals, you'll probably find yourself getting up at 5am too.
Be in charge of the department/team that "lands a major deal or create a new product line that doubles revenue" and you're on your way to the top. Being the person who was in the office until 3 am working out the final details of that deal or fixing the show stopping bugs that let you actually launch the product won't get you anywhere.
Smart companies reward those workers, dumb ones often do not. This naturally pushes some of the smart and self motivated talent towards organizations where they will be rewarded.
The one other exception is personality. The toxic person who works until 3am will rarely if ever get rewarded, because people judge more on the toxicity than anything else.
There's a tendency to minimize the work by others because we don't have the same perspective, but it's rarely ever accurate. Or helpful.
If they played a material role in meeting the goals then nothing. The question is so much about who is getting recognized as who isn't getting recognized. If you want to get recognized and get ahead then simply putting your head down and doing hard work isn't going to get you there.
Or be born into money. No amount of self-help is going to tilt the scale towards that.
She grew up rich, with the freedom to pursue her passion from the age of 10, when her mother would take her to karaoke contests. The ability to up stakes and move to Nashville, to have your father buy your way into a record label... well... it doesn’t overshadow her natural ability, but it helps to explain how she was able to leverage it so effectively.
Exactly - she won the lottery being born into a rich white family in the U.S.
But Bo Burnham’s quote really isn’t about that, he’s talking about getting lucky and having your career take off. The truth is that many many lotteries typically need to be won before you can even enter that lottery. My point was that Taylor Swift didn’t just “take a chance” on music, she used all of her existing wins to stack the deck in her favor. If you look at a lot of CEO’s the same is true of them, and it’s not just the luck of their career taking off, but the luck of ever being in a position to have that happen.
Nitpick, but this isn't actually true (see lawsuit she won), and we don't really have any way to know if it was true even before she became famous. I agree with your general point, though.
I think it was about both. Later in the clip he says to Conan O'Brien "We're tall white guys, we overcame nothing to get here."
From https://sidsavara.com/why-3-of-harvard-mbas-make-ten-times-a...
“Have you set clear, written goals for your future and made plans to accomplish them?” In 1979, interviewers asked new graduates from the Harvard’s MBA Program and found that :
84% had no specific goals at all
13% had goals but they were not committed to paper
3% had clear, written goals and plans to accomplish them
The 13% of the class who had goals were earning, on average, twice as much as the 84 percent who had no goals at all.
Even more staggering – the three percent who had clear, written goals were earning, on average, ten times as much as the other 97 percent put together.
Edit: I had often heard of this study and just pasted the first reference I found. I would delete this post, if I could, as its credibility is questionable. Thanks femto.
Though it's claimed that the myth did prompt an actual study (not peer reviewed?)
https://sidsavara.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/researchsum...
Which claims to support a fuzzier notion that writing things down helps achieve a goal.
> Or be born into money. No amount of self-help is going to tilt the scale towards that.
While there are undoubtedly success stories which resemble both of these caricatures, I think they're in the minority. I can't say I'm hobnobbing with the Forbes billionaires list but I have personal relationships with many people who built successful businesses. Betting on a unique opportunity is often an amplifier, so is starting in a good place in terms of money/family. But what they all have in common is they focused religiously on the top line, they didn't fuck up the bottom line, and they worked very hard.
Where does the "harm" you talk about come from? Usually it's because there are other responsibilities you're engaged with. If you literally give everything else up to focus on one thing, these barbs aren't in your life. I'm talking forgoing rent to crash with family/friends, eating ramen, selling/getting rid of your things, live on credit cards, etc, and have a 24/7 focus that keeps you going.
You'd be surprised how much that frees you from the immediate "harm" you describe, but you also have nothing to fall back on, because you pretty much have nothing else anymore than your pursuit, and can be amassing enormous debt (financial and otherwise). It's a huge amortized, pushed-forward harm in the hopes that the gamble pays off. For many, it doesn't.
All the things you described doing are the fallback options - you have to have a family and friends, things to sell, credit to burn. Even then, family or friends have less patience to carry you when you’re taking a moonshot unless they also have a lot they can fall back on.
That's not a judgement on what they choose, but many times the "lack of privilege" is really they because they made different choices.
Having the resources to take risks is the number one factor to succeeding, I think. Being able to identify good opportunities comes after that.
Baseball is easy when you have unlimited at-bats.
I agree that having financial resources is a huge leg up, but I don't believe it's mandatory. My beliefs are formed from personal experience. I came from a working class family that lived below the poverty line. My parents kicked me out at 18 with a warning that if I ever wanted to come back I'd better be ready to pay them rent. (Resolved that I would never take them up on that offer, never did.) When I started my business I had $250 in the bank and no idea how I was going to pay the next month's rent.
For years I failed and I sacrificed where I had to. I worked long hours at terrible rates, I didn't spend a dollar more than necessary to survive, I gave up on my hope of saving and buying property, I neglected my health, I gave up on my hope of finding a partner and starting a family because women aren't interested in a nerd who has nothing to his name except dreams.
These are the sacrifices you can make if you aren't born into wealth but you want to achieve it. Some people absolutely have success handed to them. They have a safety net which allows them to fail until they succeed. For the rest of us, you sacrifice time, energy, opportunity, and health.
It took years but it worked, one day I hit on a great business and it all turned around.
Being broke certainly limits the type of opportunity you can invest in, but there's always something.
Always? It's not a law of physics...
Let's not be superfluous. Being a CEO is hard, even the 5 am rising and 'hand shaking' parts.
Not necessarily. It completely depends on the company and the industry.
If someone said to me: "you can either work in an Amazon warehouse (either shift 7.00am-5.30pm or 5.45pm-4.15am) or be the CEO of Amazon but you're going to get paid the same whichever you choose" I know which I'd do.
I think you are misinterpreting what 'hard' means.
That makes it volatile, not hard. And the stakes are much less for volatility when you already have several cool million in the bank...
The CEO of an Ambulance company I know has about 500 staff, he's been doing it for 25 years, it all seems like a smooth operation but they're constantly facing issues. Labour and training problems, international actors that won't pay and their governments won't help, shipping problems, supply chain problems. Liability issues. IP issues with some special things they do. Orders come in batches, they might have a down year and possibly have to play people off. And I'm not even getting into the very basics of product development, financing the working capital i.e. the regular stuff employees do.
People who think CEO's just show up and wear suits and have meetings, and kiss up to the board ... I don't think have any exposure to what the job entails.
A CEO compared is a walk in the park. All those issues you've mentioned ("Labour and training problems, international actors that won't pay and their governments won't help, shipping problems, supply chain problems") are there in any business (even in a single person shop).
If you can avoid that, it must be a great job. Massive pay, no labor, people do what you say, and if you screw up the politics and get fired you’re still set for life.
The implications of this are not great.
-leading a company
-dealing with finances
-constantly making important decisions
As a hard job.
Not that the CEO should be completely out of the loop (she has to sign off, after all).
But if a CEO is dealing with nitty, gritty details if finances there's a severe delegation issue at best and a detail obsessed control-freak at worst.
A European company with major cash holdings may want to diversify currency, but that could be seen as speculative. The working capital requirements and details of the revolving loans they have from the bank. The list goes on.
The value-adds from a good CEO are outstanding strategy, positive corporate brand creation, and investor/shareholder relationship management.
The first two aren't hard in the bureaucratic sense, but in the creative sense. A lot of CEOs are terrible at them - see the long list of companies run into the ground by very poor decisions.
The last one is helped a lot by having the correct class background. It's nightmarishly hard for outsiders, and can be anywhere from not hard at all to equally nightmarish for insiders.
This does not explain how CEOs such as Fiorina and Elop can inject themselves into established companies, run them into the ground, and still walk away with lavish rewards. They are in a completely different category than ordinary Workers.
And even hard to get right matters little if you have a golden parachute (as many CEOs do). You can drive a company (or an entire sector) to the ground and still get your nice bonus.
No wonder a lot of top level executives are psychopaths, the emotional detachment must really help.
Yes, a "bad" CEO will be fired, meaning that he will pocket a fat severance package and he will be able to try again in another company with almost no stigma attached.
Even if he did it so badly making himself unhireable for similar positions, he will have already earned more money that most people (even with professional jobs) see in their lifetimes.
"With great power comes great responsibility" seems not to apply to CEOs, more like "the house always wins".
on example was the campaign against a former BT CFO would not would print shares to go on a buying spree - like Vodaphone was doing
The reason the golden parachutes exist is because CEO is likely going to be 'the end of the career' for most. There are so many reasons to get fired and it will probably happen. After that, there's not much else.
Nobody in their right mind would be a 'Big Co CEO' without some kinds of rewards even on the downside - many of these folks can make quite a lot of money in some other C-level position and do just fine right there. Why put your head on the chopping block?
You might also ask the question why athletes are paid gazillions for doing something fun, that they enjoy that comes with zero responsibility basically, and can often do very well even if they don't perform, although usually that's not the case.
And FYI most CEO's don't make gazillions of dollars, that's just what we see in the news.
Much easier than many other jobs, from mining and nursing to jobs that single mothers do in 2 shifts.
And with much more perks, respect, personal influence, and earnings...
I am sure the duties are "hard" in an absolute sense, but not relative to pay and accountability, not when compared to other jobs that are hard in an absolute sense, as you point out.
Being a CEO doesn't mean you're the boss. It means you serve everyone, from employees to customers to shareholders, and are responsible for every single thing that happens. If someone doesn't do well, it's your fault. And being responsible for others livelihoods with every decision you make is definitely not easy.
Golden parachutes ensure that this responsibility means almost nothing. CEOs have driven whole companies to the ground, losing the jobs of thousands, and got their fat check in the end. Heck, even white collar crime goes largely unpunished.
I enjoy reading them the same way I enjoy learning from my co-worker's habits. I take what matters to me and throw away the rest. I'm always trying to improve how I do my current job. It's not enough to have an open mind about work habits / techniques, one has to actively seek out new information.
Also it's usually an interesting look into someone else's life, at times even fascinating.
My friends and acquitances definitely read these books to glean some sort of inspiration/hidden jem that would start them on path to riches.
My life has no parallel to lives of these people and there's nothing I could copy.
It's my opinion that the odds of me being a CEO of a huge Corp are same as a person who is homeless for years going through college and getting a job making six figures.
There are tons of these books, and the only lesson they teach is how often people fall for the trap of survivorship bias.
This may be more applicable to artists, but my own take is that a lot of people would be surprised at how much a lot of really successful people looked like "losers" for a significant part of their early lives, due to them living in their own world and not working hard enough on anything they didn't care about because they spent all their time thinking about the one thing they really cared about.
> Faggin: Well, for the timing of the product out, that was put three-and-a-half months of my life at 80 hours a week doing the layout. I mean, that was the only way I could solve that challenge. We couldn’t find a layout draftsman. They weren’t experienced enough or fast enough. And that was the absolute, the limiting time in terms of getting the product out. Because the design, Shima pretty much was doing it all the time it was allotted, but the layout was just not getting done fast enough. And so that’s why I had to do it. You know, a CEO doing layout draftsman job was not something that would be normal, but that’s what I had to do, and I did it. So that’s how I solved that problem. And that certainly saved many, many, many months for the project. As I said, I did two-thirds to three-quarters of the chip drawing it myself.
http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Oral_Histo...
Besides I was born in poverty and needed lot of efforts to be able to socialize with people born upper middle class. I can only imagine what else I need to learn to socialize within upper echelons. I can't explain it to you fully.
Thanks for asking though, I never thought through this before.
In my experience all C level executives do a very good job of seeming like they know what they are doing. That seems to be a huge part of the job. Seeming like you know what you are doing, seeming like you know what is going to happen in the future (despite that being fundamentally unknowable) and being vaguely intimidating.
Beyond that they select from the set of possible projects that could be undertaken ie create a new product, overhaul some existing system, lay off a bunch of people etc etc. Having made that selection from the options put in front of them their reputation improves if the project goes well (or at least looks like it did). Their reputation takes a hit if the project goes badly.
They may have little or nothing to do with the project execution upon which their career rides. It seems like a bizarre job in that regard. Decide on a high level course of action then wait 6+ months to see if you will be considered a genius or an idiot. During that time your involvement is limited to periodically listening to status updates while looking stern.
I may have told this anecdote before, if so here I repeat it:
There was a Friday meeting at a place I was consulting at, the C-level executives were outlining the way projects would run to the end of the year. It seemed in some ways less than optimal, they then in a rare bit of insight into their processes said 'I know this looks less than optimal but the reason why we are doing this is ---blah blah blah 3 sentences of finance technobabble'.
It was quite clear the suboptimal process had been chosen to maximize available moneys for projects due to accounting decisions and specific legal regulations. Although exactly how eluded me.
I was pretty sure that most of the people there understood as little on the matter as I did but everyone did that expression on their face to signify they did understand that people generally use with me when I describe how stemming/decompounding works and why this means we will have to take another way in structuring our data for the search engine.
But yes most of the time I would look at those people and say that they don't do anything.
(I don’t mean to be disrespectful; just wanted to implore you to not fall for the self-imposed bigotry of low expectations.)
Just look on Angellist and you could probably find yourself a CTO or role — or one that could quickly lead to one. Just be excellent at your job; learn how to influence and be confident: you know more than most!
That's it. Along with hiring the right talent which is the half of the job (and often invisible) so that the work actually gets done. High-level decisions can affect hundreds or thousands of people and many more customers, so fewer but more important decisions is the trade-off, then delegating the rest so that other workers can do what they do best.
This description seems minor but the larger the company, the harder it is to keep things on track for a long-term focused vision. Also people don't do things just because you tell them to and you'd be surprised at just how hard it is to keep people working towards a goal.
We can't assume that book sales perfectly represent public interest in the books sold. Anytime someone who is very well-compensated in fields other than writing has an inexplicably successful book, we have to wonder how many of those books ever touched a reader's hands. Publishers just want to sell books; they don't care if lots of them are sold to a CEO-author as some sort of vanity project.
There’s always the biographies of sports people to try I can’t make it though the cover text.
I would imagine similar traits lead to writing a biography that sells well.